An open response to Patrick Barnes

Transcription

1 An open response to Patrick Barnes October8,2009 StPelagiatheRighteous DearPatrick, It has been many years since we have corresponded, and now we return to the topic of ecumenism.i mgratefulforyourreply,andtheextremecareyouputintoformulatingit.while it is written as a formal public document, please allow me to address you in the format of an openletter notadhominem,ihope,butintentionallyadpersonam. An Imbalance HeresyvsHope.HeresyvsTruth.Ithinknowwehavearrivedat PodcastvsTreatise! Myinitial contribution took the form of two informal podcasts, aiming at a broad and theologically untrained audience. Particularly in the first of my two installments, I responded during the courseofoneafternoontotheconfessionoffaithagainstecumenism,juxtaposingitbrieflyand simply with another very different text (and you are quite right, it was a rather unfair comparison). Your response is a 28 page treatise/manifesto that draws heavily on your own book length study of these questions. You are answering a tennis volley with a canon blast althoughbythismetaphoridonotimplythatyourargumentsaredevastating:someholdwater andothersdon t.amoreaptimagewouldbeabookinresponsetoanewspapereditorial:they aresimplyofatotallydifferentcharacter,withadifferentintendedaudienceandscope. (The Confession itself is something of a canon blast it makes some disturbing, violent statementsaboutnon Orthodox(e.g.,callingallofEuropeanProtestantism Pan Heresy ),and inthatcontextifounditcurioustohearsomeofmyownremarks,whichcalledtheseexcesses intoquestion,beingseenbysomeofmyrespondentsas provocative and inflammatory! ) Thatsaid,yourreplyisanimportantpieceofwork,anditsaudiencedeservestobereachedas well. But even in its content, it is not actually a response to my podcasts, which addressed a specificdocumentthatyoumentiononlyonceinyourtreatise.sowehavetwoverydifferent texts here,leavingmewiththequestionofhowtorespond.andishouldbeginbysayingthat if you seek from me a thirty page, a fifty or hundred page treatise that responds to your full satisfaction for that is what would be necessary to introduce the complexity and nuance to provideacomprehensiveresponse youwillbedisappointed. IwillnonethelessattempttorespondtoyourmainpointsasIseethem,inthehopethatIam doing some justice to the extraordinary care you have taken, and also to the validity and honesty of many of your arguments, even as I periodically identify problems in your logic or differencesinourperception.ialsoammindfulthatinanotherrecentpodcastiadvocatedthat weallhavetobeaccountableforourwords.andinthosecaseswheremywordswerecareless or caused confusion, perhaps owing to the haste of my podcast preparations, I must accept responsibilityandanswerforthis. 1

2 My chief aim here will be to take up your challenge to explain what I see (or rather what I believethechurchhasalwaystaughtandpracticed)asadefacto middleground betweenthe twoextremesofecclesiasticalisolationismandecclesiasticalrelativism.iwilldothisbyspeaking ofbaptism,economy,andlargelythroughtheworkoffrflorovsky notbecausehehasthelast wordonthesubject,butbecausemuchofyourreplyisconcernedwith(a)disagreeingwithmy readingofhisessayonthelimitsofthechurch,and(b)invokingsthilariontroitskyandothers todisagreewithwhatflorovskyactuallysays. A second aim will be to clarify identities: for one, the identity and reality of ecumenical involvement, to which end I will say a few words from my experience of ecumenism on the ground. But also the identity of Peter Bouteneff and Patrick Barnes, respectively. Because in your reply you often seem to take me, and my podcasts, as representing the entire world of Orthodox ecumenism and everything that has been said in its name. You extrapolate commentsimadeabouttheharshestextremesoftheconfessionagainstecumenism,orabout the most extreme elements among the diverse anti ecumenist camps, and apply them to yourself, in order to be able to say that I attacked you unfairly. The fact is, as you know very well,youareoneofthelessextreme,lesszealotvoices youregularlyintroduceanuanceand careintoyourargumentsthatisoftenmissingintheconfessionandothersimilartexts.indeed, Ihaveobservedthatitisthezealotswhosometimesseektodisownyourpositionsas toosoft something which only emphasizes the broad range of anti ecumenist voices, many of which are engaged in internecine battles. I thank God for your ministry in attempting to bring moderationandreasonintoasometimesfreneticandunchurchlydiscourse. Sowehavetoavoidpaintingsimplisticormonolithicpicturesofecumenistsvs.antiecumenists. As you ll be seeing in this letter, I will be distancing myself from some extremes of Orthodox ecumenism.ihopeyouwilllikewisecontinuetodistanceyourselffromsomeoftheextremesof anti ecumenistliterature asyouperiodicallydoelsewhere. Definitions On that score, I greatly appreciate your frank admission early on that the Confession of Faith AgainstEcumenismhascertainflaws.I mnotclaiminganyvictoryhere.rather,i mgratefulfor thefewplaceswhereyoufindsitconceivabletosaythattherearepointsonwhichweactually agree. This is an important contribution to an honest and nuanced exchange. And I only wish youhadgonefurther,toadmitmoreplaceswheretheconfessiongoesawry. Anothermajorcontributionisyourseekingtodefineyourterms,beginningwith ecumenism and ecumenist, and moving on to Grace. Later on the definitions get a bit hazy in your usage,andistillquestionthevalueofover quantifying Grace. Butatleastattheoutset,your provide an invaluable (and sadly almost unique) clarity, that helps assure that people are actually speaking about the same thing, instead of hurling ideological salvos at each other. Becausethefactremainsthatalthoughyouhavetakenthecaretodoso,theConfessiondoes not,andneitherdomostoftheextremistanti ecumeniststatements. Having said that, I once again invite you to please desist from saying that I accuse all antiecumenists of simplistic hysteria, or of being unsophisticated or uneducated, and then defending yourself against those charges. At the same time, you might stop attributing to me the things that were said by other ecumenists, and defending yourself against them too. In short, you ought to be clear as to who is doing the talking. And more generally, you ought to 2

3 admit here, as you do throughout your remarkable web site, that there are a wide variety of anti ecumenistgroups,andawidevarietyofanti ecumenistliterature,someofwhichisindeed lacking in nuance, and some that isn t. That is what I maintain with consistency in my two podcasts.asidefromneverusingtheword unsophisticated, Iwouldneverincludeyouamong thetotalextremists.now,ontocontent. Baptism, Florovsky, and the middle ground Baptism is a hugely important issue in the ecumenism discussion. It is also one of the areas where the nuance for which I ve just praised you begins to fray. For here is one of the places whereyouattributetomeandtomypodcaststhingsthatihaveneverasserted.ineverused thewords baptismalecclesiology, nordidievenspeakofthe validity ofbaptismoutsidethe Orthodox Church, nor did I ever infer that we share a common baptism with the non Orthodox. You vebeenthoroughinpresentingmanyofthecaseswhereorthodoxecumenistshaveused language that implies something akin to a Branch ecclesiological relativism. There are instanceswhereyoucitethemoutofcontext,orreadmoreintothetextthanisintended.the famous 1920 encyclical never says that churches are members of the same body (cf. p. 6). It speaks of non Orthodox churches, true, but only in respect of their own declared selfappellation. Atthesametime,Ihavetosaythatthereare ecumenist statementsyoucitethatmakeme uncomfortable.hereiswhereiwouldidentifyacertainrangeamongorthodoxecumenistsas well,andindicatewhereonthatrangeilocatemyself.iconfessthatimyselfamdissatisfied,for example, with the language of the document Baptism and Sacramental Economy that you quote on page 5. I don t believe Fr. Florovsky would be comfortable with it either, because it implies,atleast,atotalrelativismofourbaptismsandthereforeofourchurches.iamlikewise extremely unhappy with the language of two lungs, and even sister churches, and would neveragreetoitsdogmaticusage.thatiswhyyouhaveneverheardmeusethislanguageto refer to the relationship of Orthodox to non Orthodox, because if these metaphors are being spoken in their fully theological sense, they are misleading. As it is, I believe that most of the time(includinginbishopmaximos sessay)theyarebeinginvokedinanothermodeofspeech. Justlastmonth,ArchbishopHilarionofVolokolamskspokeofthelackofEucharisticcommunion between Orthodox and Catholic churches, and division generally, is a sin that tears apart the bodyofthechurch. Technicallyordogmaticallyspeaking,onecouldnotsaythis.Butspeaking fromtheheart,onemostcertainlycan.iknowbishop(nowmetropolitan)maximos,andiknow ArchbishopHilarion;bothmenareuncompromisingontheidentityoftheOrthodoxChurchas the One Holy Church of Jesus Christ, and neither holds to the ecclesiological relativism that is implied by the two lung metaphor. But they are also people who are sensitive to Christian reality (we have to struggle to find an appropriate vocabulary here) in the Roman Catholic Church,andIdeeplyrespectthemandagreewiththemforthatsensitivity.Havingsaidthis,I believe that one should avoid using misleading metaphors at all costs, except in cases where theirprecisesenseisclearlyspecified. In short, there are times that the ecclesiological relativism you attribute to certain texts is a matter of one s unsympathetic reading, yet there are also points where such texts go further thaniwouldlike.however,iwouldstandbymyassertionthatthe Orthodoxecumenists, i.e., 3

4 people like me who participate in inter Christian dialogue, including through the various nationalcouncilsandtheworldcouncilofchurches,donotteachthe branchtheory. Andour participationintheecumenicalmovementdoesnotinitselfconstituterelativism.rather,asfr SeraphimRosepointsoutinoneofthequotationsIsupplyattheendofthisreply, [Orthodox ecumenists]onlyirritatetheprotestantsintheecumenicalmovementbyfrequentlystatingat ecumenical gatherings that Orthodoxy is the Church of Christ. I know this very well from experience. Now here is where we get to the famous middle ground that I speak about in my podcasts, and that you call into question. Because while I do not believe that we share a common baptism with non Orthodox, nor do I believe we are two lungs of one body, nor branches of onetree,ido withreverence assertthatthereischristianlifeoutsidetheorthodoxchurch. This, to me, is a more fruitful point of discussion than the argument over whether there is mysteriologicalgrace, orsome,oralittle,orwhatever,presentoutsidetheorthodoxchurch. Havingsaidthat,IamstronglyinclinedtoagreewithFr.Florovsky sfamousandcrucialassertion that the charismatic borders of the Church are not the same as its canonical borders an unequivocal assertion of mysteriological Grace outside of canonical Orthodoxy. You repeatedlysaythatflorovskysideswithstcyprian stheology,andofcoursethisisso.butlook attheparagraphthatyouyourselfcite,andwhatitisactuallysaying.(hereiwilladdemphasis.) St Cyprian started from the silent supposition that the canonical and charismatic limits of the Church invariably coincide, and it is his unproven equation that has not been confirmed by the communal consciousness of the Church. Ishesayingthatthe Churchconsciousness iswrongingoingbeyondstcyprian?no.because theaboveobservationleadstohisnextpoint: In her sacramental, mysterious being the Church surpasses all canonical norms. For that reason a canonical cleavage does not immediately signify mystical impoverishment and desolation. All that Cyprian said about the unity of the Church and the sacraments can be and must be accepted. But it is not necessary to draw with him the final boundary around the body of the Church by means of canonical points alone. Florovskyremainsappropriatelyapophaticinspeakingofwhatthesecharismaticbordersmight look like, but his assertion that they may be larger than the canonical borders of the Church remainsvital,andentirelysupportedbythepracticeofthechurchthroughthecenturies.the above is simply to clarify what Florovsky is saying, and his relationship to the teaching of St CyprianofCarthage. While I would not speak of a common baptism with non Orthodox, I cannot but recognize that, say, a Roman Catholic Baptism, in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit, is and I am not dogmatic with my words, but rather provisional at the very least somethingofapromiseofentryintochristianlife,ifnotmorethanthat.thatisdifferentfrom saying it is an entry into the Body of Christ, in the same sense as baptism into the Orthodox Church. This is why Roman Catholics are commonly received into Orthodoxy by some kind of additional rite that indicates a completion, a sure joining into the Body as cannot have been dogmaticallyassuredbefore.butbaptizedromancatholics,anglicans,lutherans,personswho arelivingthefaithoftheirrespectivefathers,haveveryclearlyenteredintoarealitythatsets themapartfromthenon Christiansphere.Insomecasesthisentryisborneoutina Christian 4

5 life that one would have to be obtuse not to perceive. This is why we have C.S. Lewis, von Balthasar,deLubac,MotherTeresa,aspersonswhoworshipandservetheOneGodandFather, inhissonjesuschrist,throughtheholyspirit.theyarechristians.yes,theyaredividedfrom us, and would that they were one with us. But they were baptized into something, and that something is not pan heresy, as the Confession calls the pseudo churches of Western Europe. AmIa branchtheorist tosayasmuch?areyougoingtoaskmehowmuchgrace, and what kind of Grace do they possess? (I suppose one of my main objections to your approach,andthatofmanywhomyoucite,istheinsistenceondefiningandquantifyinggrace asifitwereacurrency.) The middle ground between ecclesiological relativism on the one hand, and the complete absenceofchristianlifeorcharismaticgraceoutsideorthodoxyontheotherhand,istestified to yes by the variety of practices of reception of non Orthodox, throughout history and today, especially where we can demonstrate that this variety has clear theological basis, not merely historical precedent. (Here I take exception with the interpretation of St. Hilarion Troitsky,asIwillsayagainbelow.) StBasiltheGreat scanonicalepistleisfrequentlycitedbyallsidesofthisdebate.whatiseeas its main relevance to our conversation is its explicit acknowledgement of a differentiation amongtheseparated,somethingwhichyouseemtodenyhasanyrealmeaning(p.5).asiswell known, St Basil distinguishes heresies, schisms, and illegal congregations. We ought to note thatthegroupshecitesas heresies bearalmostnoresemblancetochristianity:manichaeans, Valentinians,andMontanists.Theschisms whosebaptismheaccepts,bytheway hesaysare reconcilable and,evenmoreremarkably, stillofthechurch(etiektesekklesiasonton). Are westilldenyingdifferentextentsofseparation? Now,thebigproblemhere,aswithmanydimensionsofancientcanonicaldiscipline including the canons on prayer with heretics is exactly how to apply these categories in our own context, and to the churches as we know them today. For the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Evangelicals, and Methodists of today, for example, are in vastly different relations witheachotherandwiththeorthodoxchurch,andhaveundergonevastlydifferenthistories, than the groups St Basil would have encountered and categorized. I would have a hard time fittingthemeasilyintoanyofhiscategories.(thisisanexampleofwhatmakesmanyofthe21 questions withwhichyoucloseyourtreatiseunanswerableintheformthatyouposethem.) ButwhatweneedtoretainisStBasil sunderstandingofdifferentiatedseparationandtherefore differentmodesofreception,somethingtowhichhereturnselsewhereinhiswrittenwork(see e.g.,epistle199.47). Asyourfrequentlypointoutinyourreply,eventheArians,whodeniedthedivinityoftheSon, were received after the second Ecumenical Council without rebaptism. Here you cite several important figures in the Church who said that the reception of converts (such as the Arians) without(re) baptismisdoneaccordingto oikonomia. Bythattermtheymeantherelaxingof canonical principles. But as Fr Florovsky, once again, reminds forcibly throughout his famous essaythatwebothkeepciting, oikonomia doesnot(cannot)createsomethingoutofnothing. There either was something in the non Orthodox baptism or there was not. The answer he gives, which he attributes to St Augustine, is effectively to say that the baptism becomes effectiveuponentryintotheorthodoxchurch.now,thatcanbemadetosoundscholastic,or transactional, or even bizarre. But can we not see a spiritual truth to it? Or better, an 5

6 eschatologicaltruth?inthatcase,ifbaptismisefficaciousretroactively,canwenotidentify,as partofthatretroactiveeffectiveness,theelementsofalifeoffaithinthegod ManJesusChrist in the baptized Roman Catholic? We must continue to find language that makes sense of a realitythatisconsistentlyacknowledgedthroughoutthechurch slife,thatspeaksofbaptismin terms,alternately,ofgrace,ofpromise,ofgift,ofvocation,ofentry.florovskyisrighttoremain apophatic,inmakingstatementsaboutthe manybonds,stillnotbroken,wherebytheschisms areheldtogetherinacertainunitywiththechurch. Butinalltheapophaticism,heissaying something crucially important. Here is how he summarizes the points discussed in the above fewparagraphs: [T]he love of God can overcome the failure of love in man. In the sects themselves - and even among the heretics - the Church continues to perform her saving and sanctifying work. It may not follow, perhaps, that we should say that schismatics are still in the Church. In any case this would not be precise and sounds equivocal. It would be truer to say that the Church continues to work in the schisms in expectation of that mysterious hour when the stubborn heart will be melted in the warmth of God s prevenient grace, when the will and thirst for communality and unity will finally burst into flame. The validity of sacraments among schismatics is the mysterious guarantee of their return to Catholic plenitude and unity. Thelaterpagesofyourreplycometoleanheavilyononeofyourfavoriteauthors,St.Hilarion Troitsky,animportantfigureintheearly20 th centuryrussianchurchandahieromartyr,who saysthatthediversityofpracticeinthereceptionofconvertswaswithoutdifferentiatingvery rigorously between their respective dogmatic teachings (p. 12). This is supposed to trump Florovsky,butitishistoricallyinaccurate.(Agreatsaint scanonizationdoesnotconferinerrancy on his every word.) Service books to this day (such as the famous Hapgood book in use through so much of the English speaking Orthodox Church in the 20 th c.) stipulate different modesofreceptionpreciselywithrespecttothedifferentteachingsandritesoftheconvert s origin.indoingsotheyarefaithfultopracticesofthechurchoverthecenturies atleastsince thefourth. What is ecumenism? Much of your reply, together with other anti ecumenical literature, emanates from a deepseated discomfort with the whole idea (and not just the theology) of ecumenism here meaningtheinstitutionalizedformofinter Christianencounter.It sakindofallergy,andihave tosaythatibothfinditperfectlyunderstandable,anddon texpecttoalteritinanysignificant way. What I can try to do is shed some perspective on the endeavor by writing from the experience of what I have seen actually happening within ecumenical encounters. Some of that,iwillinglyadmit,isworthyofallergicreaction,andihavefeltitmyself.someofitisjust plain boring, bland, or stupid. But all in all, I think that the spiritual or theological danger of ecumenicalencountersisgrosslyexaggerated. AsI vedonethiskindofthingbefore,iwilldrawonsomethingsi vewritteninthepast,where I ve pointed out several pitfalls which need to be avoided when assessing ecumenism and Orthodox participation in it. You, Patrick, do not make all of these distorted assumptions, but thepeoplewhomyoucallupontosupportyourargumentsoftendo. 6

7 One mistake is to treat ecumenism generally, and the WCC in specific, as a monolithic and undifferentiated phenomenon. As opponents of any movement or trend are apt to do, opponents of ecumenism often isolate and combine certain unrepresentative events and statements to paint a cataclysmic portrait of the WCC or of what they call ecumenism. For example,thankstovideotapesandyoutube,twoeventswhichoccurredatthewcc sgeneral AssemblyatCanberrain1991havecomeinthemindsofsomepeopletorepresenteverything thatthewccstandsforanddoes.onewastheopeningprayerserviceofthatassembly,where Assembly participants walked through incense to enter the place of worship, and where they sawaboriginalmembersoftheanglicanchurchdancingandplayingtraditionalinstrumentson thestage.(aseparateessaycouldbewrittenaboutboththeproblemsandthenon problemsof thisevent.)theotherepisodewasapresentationataplenarysessionoftheassembly,wherea Koreanfeministtheologianinvokedthespiritsof earth,air,waterandseacreatures. Thesehappeningsdoindeedrequiremeasuresofexplanationand/orprotest andinfactthey justlyreceivedharshcriticismfromtheorthodoxparticipantsoftheassembly,asdocumented bytheminutes.buttheyhavebeentelescopedinsuchawayastosuggestthatthiskindofthing isallthewcceverdoes.whichiswhysomepeople(thoughnotyou,tomyknowledge)saythat ecumenicalinstitutionsarerunby neo Pagans. Another mistake is to judge the events and statements emanating from the ecumenical movement or from WCC officials as if they had authority, whether doctrinal or ecclesiastical, over the Orthodox Church or over anybody. If it were true that anything written in a WCC messageoranythingsaidbyawccofficialhadbindingauthorityonthememberchurchesthen theorthodoxwouldhavewithdrawnlongagoorneverwouldhavejoined.indeed,muchissaid anddoneinthewccthatrunscountertoorthodoxdoctrineandethos which,somewould argue,iswhywehavetobethere.onthisscore,iamgladthatstmarkofephesuswaspresent at the Council in Florence Ferrara, in order to witness to the errors in the deeply problematic agreementthatotherswerepreparedtoendorse. A further mistake within Orthodox discussion on the ecumenical question is to approach statementsandtextsproducedthroughecumenicalprocesseswithunreasonableexpectations. Very often people expect everything coming from an inter Christian forum to sound as if it emanatedfromanorthodoxsynodoranorthodoxdogmaticstext.acertainamountofrealism is necessary when considering, for one, that the documents emerging from ecumenical encounters are the product of a great variety of processes, and they have an equally great varietyofintendeduses,andofcourse,noneofthemcarryanyauthoritywhatsoeveroverthe churches themselves. So here, as with all texts, the reader is responsible for applying the appropriatemodeofinterpretation:isthisintendedasadoctrinalstatement,apolicydocument formychurchoraproposalfordiscussion?isthisaspeechbyoneindividual,theproductofa meetingoftenpeople,ortheprocessoftenyearsofconferencesandchurchresponses? Inadditiontoaskingsuchquestions,itmustbeborneinmindthatthepersonsindialoguewith the Orthodox have generally come from generations of Protestantism, Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism,andwhetherornottheirviewsaremistakenonagivensubject,theyareoftenas convincedofthemasweareconvincedofours.theirviewsarenotapttochangequickly.noris theviewofmanyprotestantsintheecumenicalmovementthat TheOneChurch isinfactbest describedbybranchesofonetree. 7

8 The realism I m calling for above does not exonerate us from the responsibility of reviewing ecumenical texts with great care and with the intent of correcting them in a constructive fashion.italsoplacesonustheresponsibilitytoexplainwhatwearedoing,tothefaithfulofour Church,sothattheywouldnotbescandalized.WouldthatthereweremoreOrthodoxwhoare ready and willing for these tasks! And would that the anti ecumenical extremists cease from fanningflamesofscandalamongourfaithful,becauseifyouaskme,theyaredoingfarmoreto scandalizeanddividethanthoseofuswhoparticipateinecumenicalmeetings. conclusions TherearemanyotherpointsraisedinyourreplythatInevermentionedinmypodcastandthat have no connection to the Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism to which I was chiefly reacting;itisnotmyresponsibilitytoaddressthemhere.ihavenonethelesstriedtoaddress, sometimes more and sometimes less thoroughly, most of the points you summarize on p. 25, andevensomeofthechallengesyouposeonpp atleastthosewhichareanswerablein lessthan8,000words,iftheyareanswerableatall. I would like, for my part, pose you the following questions, by citing the Confession Against Ecumenism: Do you believe that Lutherans, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics (=Protestantism and Papism) in Western Europe are correctly referred to by the common name of Ecumenism or Pan Heresy? Do you believe that Roman Catholics (aka Papism) have accepted the pan heresy of ecumenism, which adopts and legalizes all heresies as churches? Have you read the encyclical Dominus Iesus, or the more recent Vatican document, Response to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, which refutes anythingapproachingsuchaclaim? Doyouaffirmthat thepapists haveforfeitedthepresenceoftheholyspirit? Doyoubelievethat Papists sufferfromdogmaticminimalism?(formypart,ithought thatifanythingtheysufferfromdogmaticmaximalism.) Patrick,mypointhereistourgethemoremoderateanti ecumenistssuchasyourselftoownup tothefactthatthereismuchthatissaidinthenameofanti ecumenismthatiswrongand/or under nuanced.andevenharmful.you vebegun,verycautiously,todoso,justasihavehere owneduptomydiscomfortwithsomeofthethingssaidinecumenicalcontexts.wehavetobe honest.andtothisenditmighthelptocontinuethisconversationoutsideofthefullpublicview somethingi dbegladtodo. Alast,relatedurging,tore emphasizewhatisaidearlier:whentalkingwithme,youdonothave toanswertoeveryinsulteverleveledbyanecumenistagainstazealot.formypart,icouldhave wastedmuchtimetryingtodefendmyselfagainsteverybizarreaccusationorname callingi ve receivedatthehandsofextremists.ifyoudowanttocontinuethisconversation,inshort,iurge youtohaveitasaconversationwithme. YoursinChrist, PeterBouteneff 8

9 Postscript: A few quotations for mutual reflection Someonewhohasactuallytastedtruthisnotcontentiousfortruth.Someonewhoisconsidered by people to be zealous for truth has not yet learnt what truth is really like; once he has truly learntit,hewillceasefromzealousnessonitsbehalf. St.IsaactheSyrian,Kephalaia4.77. IthinkthenthattheonegreatgoalofallwhoarereallyandtrulyservingtheLordoughttobeto bringbacktounionthechurcheswhohaveatdifferenttimesandindifferentwaysdividedfrom oneanother.inattemptingmyselftoeffectthis,icannotfairlybeblamedforwastingmytime, fornothingissocharacteristicallychristianasbeingapeacemaker,andforthisreasonourlord haspromiseduspeacemakersaveryhighreward. StBasiltheGreat,Epistle94,reconcilingtherepentingArianchurches When the hand draws up a quantity of water, there is separated from it, not only the residue whichisleftbehind,butalsothosedropswhichtrickleoutthroughthefingers;soalsothereisa separationbetweenusand,notonlythosewhoarealoofintheirimpiety,butalsothosewhoare mostpious,bothinregardtosuchdoctrinesasareofsmallconsequenceandalsoinregardto expressionsintendedtobearthesamemeaning. StGregorytheTheologian,Oration21.35 Some would be zealots of Orthodoxy use the term [ecumenism] in entirely too imprecise a fashion,asthoughtheveryuseofthetermorcontactwithan ecumenical organizationisitselfa heresy. Suchviewsareclearlyexaggerations. Ecumenism isaheresyonlyifitactuallyinvolves the denial that Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. A few of the Orthodox leaders of the ecumenical movement have gone this far; but most Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movementhavenotsaidthismuch;andafew(suchasthelatefr.georgesflorovsky)haveonly irritated the Protestants in the ecumenical movement by frequently stating at ecumenical gatheringsthatorthodoxyisthechurchofchrist.onemustcertainlycriticizetheparticipation of even these latter persons in the ecumenical movement, which at its best is misleading and vague about the nature of Christ s Church; but one cannot call such people heretics, nor can one affirm that any but a few Orthodox representatives have actually taught ecumenism as a heresy.thebattlefortrueorthodoxyinourtimesisnotaidedbysuchexaggerations. The excessive reaction against the ecumenical movement has the same worldly spirit that is presentintheecumenicalmovementitself. Fr.SeraphimRose,(LifeandWorks,p.997). Ecumenism strikes terror in the hearts of those who think of the Orthodox Church as a fragile flower,ratherthanthebasisoftheuniverse. BishopTikhonofSanFrancisco(retired) 9